Deterrence how is it defined for India?

In this thread I want to discuss, Deterrence how do we define it for India? Deterrence against China and Pakistan. How the Deterrence is different for both?Deterrence in an offensive sense Nuclear weapons as one example or nuclear submarines,missiles etc... how much is enough??Deterrence by land,air and sea Have we come close to completing our deterrence goals? what is missing? Long ranger Bombers, ICBM?? greater missile numbers?? Missile ranges?? Deterrence in an defensive sense BMD being one example. Deterrence as a focus of policy issues especially with a no first use policy and Deterrence in the face of widespread nuclear and missile proliferation in our part of the world. What is deterrence for India in your opinion how do you define it? Include weapons,policy, alliances, security pacts,arms purchases,joint collaborations etc... whatever you think is relevant in your definition of Indian deterrence.

FIRST i would like to redefine deterrance;Deterrence for India as defined by me me would not be merely deterrance against WMD'S it would be the clear knowledge among all nations that any assault on India(successful or unsuccessful) by any state or it's intermediateries would be returned in double measure i.e if you try to punch my eye out i will not rest until you are turned blind.

Do i believe India deters it's enemies in the present day-NO , does any modern state deter it's enemies-NO. do other states take clear and unambigious action against their enemies-YES, does India do the same-NO

What is required for deterrance today is not a thousand nukes, nor a million man army what is required is strength and resolve among the people and government to act against all anti- national elements both internal and external, to let them know that for every indian they kill ,we shall kill ten of theirs ,we shall not rest we shall not stop ,we shall care two hoots about their safe havens being in foreign lands ;we shall pursue them and destroy themwhere they sleep ,where they eat and where they pray .India shall only be able to truly deter an enemy when that enemy knows clearly the magnitude of our revenge shall deny him and his friends any safe haven until that there is no deterrence.

A number of factors must be in place for deterrence to function. First, the deterrer must have the capability to carry out the threat which has been made.Has India reached this point specifically to carry out a overwhelming second strike in regard to our no first use policy?This fear of the retaliation would be the deterrence that prevents the strike on India in the first place. Second, the threatened response must seem credible to the potential perpetrator. Credibility requires that the deterrer has, as well as the capability, the will to carry out the threat, and that this can be communicated to and understood by the potential perpetrator. Deterrence is therefore a relationship. Do we have this credibility?

If the deterrer's military capability and his will to use it are not credible, or if the communication between adversaries is flawed, then the deterrent threat will not be convincing. Even when deterrence has none of these flaws, an aggressor may simply refuse to be deterred.

What is required for deterrance today is not a thousand nukes, nor a million man army what is required is strength and resolve among the people and government to act against all anti- national elements both internal and external, to let them know that for every indian they kill ,we shall kill ten of theirs ,we shall not rest we shall not stop ,we shall care two hoots about their safe havens being in foreign lands ;we shall pursue them and destroy themwhere they sleep ,where they eat and where they pray .India shall only be able to truly deter an enemy when that enemy knows clearly the magnitude of our revenge shall deny him and his friends any safe haven until that there is no deterrence.

Click to expand...

In reference with the post partially quoted above,

I am sorry as I have to note that, just a few decades ago there was a nation called TIBET - which fought with all it's heart and soul against a more powerful neighbour ( which shall remain unnamed ? hah !)

@ Roma -What i meant to say was not that willpower alone without weapons wins wars, i was alluding to the fact that even if you have a thousand nukes and a million man army , without the willpower to use them you are as good as dead.
In 1962 we lost because of one thing , wrong decisions regarding national security taken by all ranking members of the Nehru cabinet since 1947.We had the willpower to fight the chinese in 1962 but we never had the willpower to create a comprehensive plan for national defence against the chinese before 1962, and in that lay our folly.We never had the willpower to ready ourself to confront the dragons design on our land before it was too late and in that lay our folly.
Trust me unless the men in Zhongnanhai know that the Indian people and government have the willpower to make sure that each dong-feng of theirs shall be answered by an agni, each missile on Mumbai shall be answered by one on Shanghai, all our missiles , all our bombs are useless!

In my opinion there is nothing called perfect deterrence. A lot depends upon the enemy leadership and many other things. As an example, even in present condition Indian missile and nuclear power is enough to cause heavy damages and no sane political leader (be Chinese or Pakistani) can risk to provoke India for a nuclear strike. But only thing you can’t guarantee whether your opposition is sane or not. The communists in China might not deter from sacrificing millions of their people , leadership in Pakistan might fall in the hand of the extremists who, in their elusion, hardly think of the consequences. A solid air-defense network is what we very urgently require. We are in the process since 1995 and hope in next 5-10 years, inclusion of Akash,SPYDER,Barak etc and ongoing development works with Israel will give us a formidable missile shield (Ballistic or cruise). For last five years there is no news of the ‘Electron Injector’(which could be used to shoot enemy missiles or aircrafts more effectively) that BARC was developing. Hope BARC is on its way to provide us a new generation defense system. Clearly, such a system will act as a solid deterrence as the enemy will be doubtful about the success of their attack. Honestly saying I think Bengalraider has pointed the most important thing- willpower. See, Pakistan with their deterrence of nuclear weapons blatantly supporting anti-Indian activities (they did it even when they didn’t have the deterrence) and India kept on sitting like a duck. Try such tricks against China or US, they won’t hesitate to come and hammer you. Against China, I am doubtful about minimum credible deterrence (what they call it) as they will keep on pushing you as you are not capable of over power him. If you are morally week you won’t be able to hold the ground. You will use your nukes only when they use, but, they will get their job done just by intimidating you. So I think India should try to build more than what is called minimum deterrence and must convey the message, that she is ready to see the end if necessary .

Th term 'Deterrence' is very subjective in both scope and interpretation.The deterrence is ideally a healthy mix of offensive systems(mostly conventional) and defensive system(non conventional and strategic in nature..i e nuclear).Offensive deterrence must be qualified while Defensive deterrence must be ambiguous.

Hence one could say 'Deterrence' comes down to our policy posturing backed up by an effective,visible and sufficiently ambiguous combat system.

@ Roma -What i meant to say was not that willpower alone without weapons wins wars, i was alluding to the fact that even if you have a thousand nukes and a million man army , without the willpower to use them you are as good as dead.
In 1962 we lost because of one thing , wrong decisions regarding national security taken by all ranking members of the Nehru cabinet since 1947.We had the willpower to fight the chinese in 1962 but we never had the willpower to create a comprehensive plan for national defence against the chinese before 1962, and in that lay our folly.We never had the willpower to ready ourself to confront the dragons design on our land before it was too late and in that lay our folly.
Trust me unless the men in Zhongnanhai know that the Indian people and government have the willpower to make sure that each dong-feng of theirs shall be answered by an agni, each missile on Mumbai shall be answered by one on Shanghai, all our missiles , all our bombs are useless!

Click to expand...

okay . bengal R - perhaps i misread - so we are on the same page - in fact i had a thread earlier named " political will to use nuclear weapons " .

I feel proud in the fact that in its history India had neither invaded any county nor attacked any country at first instance. But I also feel said about the fact that when we were attacked our response was never extraordinary.

I am not an expert. For me the word Deterrence has only one meaning. It means to make your enemy think 100 times before attacking you. So for me we lack the minimum deterrence for both Pakistan and China.

When I talk about we lack deterrence against Pakistan, I am not taking about our offensive capabilities. We have more than enough power to give a befitting reply to Pakistan’s aggression. But the question is can our offensive capability prevent an attack from Pakistan? The answer is no. Because there are enough rouge element within Pakistan establishment who will attack India, knowing it fully that it will be suicidal for them.

Now against China we don’t have enough offensive capability but our defensive capability is good against China. The reason being China may speak in aggressive tone but they will think at least 10 times before attacking India. Secondly the terrain between India and China is hostile in most of the places. But we have to increase our offensive capability against china by deploying Agni-5 and a SLBM (of minimum 3500km range) as soon as possible.